Mpalive compares Homer’s mannered offensives against Ulysses’enemies with Amis’ expletives – but doesn’t The Movement still use form?
Transgression comes from Larkin by critiquing pre-war social values. He wasn’t afraid of being outrageous.
This one’s for Geoff: We say his name “Pa-leave-ay”.
David thinks Larkin’s being serious throughout Church Going because he’s unsentimental. However, due to his ironic usages, his mischievous pointers, how can we trust his poetic debate? Does he give a shit at all?
-In writing, he gives enough of a shit…I begrudgingly accept. He knew he might become a public persona.
Heaney’s ‘Englands of the Mind’ says “There is a gap in Larkin between the perceiver and the thing perceived…English poets are being forced to explore not just the matter of England, but what is the matter with England.”
Seamus Heaney, Finders Keepers: Selected Prose 1971-2001 (London: Faber, 2002) pp.90, 94, 95.
Viktor Shvlovsky [Russian Formalists] said ‘Automatising Language’ was important to poetry. What we’re lacking in Larkin is this funbdamental because the poetisation of this makes it respectable. At the same time, one can argue that it’s a qualified domestication because it retains a sense of disassociation.
Larkin was never the people’s poet. He was an art-fag.
Posted by Wordmobi